• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

Izzy Folau

smartcooky said:
Its not quite like that.

Folau was sacked, but he was entitled to appeal that decision, and had 48 hours to do so. (until 2pm today AEST). He has decided to appeal, as is his right.

This thing here is that he is very, very unlikely to be reinstated to playing for either Waratahs or the Wallabies... that ship looks to have sailed with the Waratahs standing him down permaently, and Cheika saying he doesn't want him in the Wallabies environment.

What will almost certainly be at issue here is that Folau will try to argue that he didn't breach his contract that he is entitled to spread his religious opinion, and any contract that says he cannot is illegal on human rights grounds that it inhibits his freedom of religious expression, and therefore, the sacking was unwarranted..... all of this is code for "I want my money!" He was contracted until 2022, so he want his next three years of pay.

Frankly, I think his chances of success fall somewhere between zero and zippo.

There is also another issue though; one that could drop him in legal jeopardy on the off chance that he succeeds. There is a possibility that legal authorities could become involved. All it will take is for just one LGBTQ+ employee of Rugby Australia to make an official complaint to the NSW Police, and it could trigger this....

The NSW Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (Section 49ZT) states: "It is unlawful for a person, by a public act, to incite hatred towards, serious contempt for, or severe ridicule of, a person or group of persons on the ground of the homosexuality of the person or members of the group".
Click to expand...
Interesting.

But do you think he broke that law? I would interpret the word "incite" to imply he intended his post to motivate others to hate etc homosexuals. He was reckless for sure, but I don't think it would be easy to prove, given everything else he has said, that there was such intent.
I mean I can see there being a serious debate in the court room but I'm not convinced the prosecution would land
 
Reiser99 said:
My personal opinion is that everyone is free to believe what they like, so long as it's a personal belief to them. I think organised religion is one of the biggest problems in society and throughout history as it has been used horrifically over thousands of years to justify many despicable acts. Take for example the inquisition, selling of pardons, the Holy Wars in the Middle East. This is why I quoted that part of your post. Religion has cause just as much wars, tyranny and evil deeds as secular reasons. Across all religions some people use their religion to justify their intolerance, bigotry, sexism etc... under the guise that their god or religion told them to.

The problem comes in that 2000 year old words don't directly apply to the current world and society, therefore they can be misinterpreted by a few people (I say few, but just look at the amount of homophobic American Christians in the mid-west) to justify their views.

Now I took this from Wikipedia, but I assume it's accurate "This conservative group also opposes the ordination of women." I'll let you guess which group that is. Simply do you agree that only men should be ordained and be able preach the word of God as part of your church, or that 2000 year old words written by MEN to preserve a patriarchal society, don't necessarily apply anymore and that there is no justification for sexism, especially as this is all based on the teachings of a man who supposedly preached equality and tolerance?
Click to expand...

That is one way of looking at it. But then again, not all the books in the Bible are written by men...

I however think that our history shouldn't be swept under the rug, as it's what got us where we are today. Some of these acts you mentioned above, had something that triggered it to happen, sometimes by other religions, and those acts was a way to stop further evil deeds from occurring, but in the process, evil deeds were also done.

There will be so many facets to religion and who did what in the name of whoever the god is they praise. All I'm trying to get out is that religion is a cornerstone of many countries today, and the old beliefs are still part of today's society. Every religion have extremists, and that's why I mentioned the literal take on scripture above.

Now I don't see Folau as an extremist, I see him more as a person being unduly influenced by a group, and using their own interpretation of scripture as a way to influence others, and in the process have a hurtful/hateful reaction towards others.

Again, not all churches or religions are doing this.
 
Reiser99 said:
Now I took this from Wikipedia, but I assume it's accurate "This conservative group also opposes the ordination of women." I'll let you guess which group that is. Simply do you agree that only men should be ordained and be able preach the word of God as part of your church, or that 2000 year old words written by MEN to preserve a patriarchal society, don't necessarily apply anymore and that there is no justification for sexism, especially as this is all based on the teachings of a man who supposedly preached equality and tolerance?
Click to expand...
I appreciate Heineken probably know this and has his own interpretation. You also have to take into the account Mary Magdalene was a particularly important figure in Jesus' life and then was quite clearly smeared by the Catholic Church so the most prominent woman within Jesus' story (and mentioned more than any apostle) was not considered important.

Should note I'm not religious I just find the subject interesting, how do people align their beliefs with a contradictory book where most was not written at a time where the principal actors were alive. Its also interesting the amount of who profess to a religion who don't follow the teaching of their particular sect and outright ignore them.

I'm in agreement with you though I despise the religion defense for being able to spout hatred. Going back to Heineken I have no issue our laws are based of Christianity, Jesus (if his teachings are real) had a good philosophical base about loving your fellow man and being good to people. However we must also accept we live in 2019 and many of those teachings are outdated and we can't use religion as a way of updating out philosophical outlook. Bishop's in the House of Lords is one many many issues with the Lords and its legitimacy. I appreciate the difference of opinion is I treat the bible (and other holy texts) as a book to get philosophical understanding and others see it written universal truth.
 
You'd be hard pressed to find a Christian religion that hasn't evolved over 2000 years, an easy example to make after ncurd's post is that now the Catholic church sees the roles of Mary Magdalene and particularly the Virgin Mary as more significant than the majority of protestant and orthodox churches do. Some things change while others are set in stone for no discernible reason, there's no reason why churches can't change their views and state the obvious that there is no moral difference to being gay or straight.

There's also the obvious factor that you don't have to agree with everything your church teaches you, if Jesus had Christianity wouldn't exist, if Martin Luther had Folau's church wouldn't exist etc... But the influence a church can have on impressionable kids still leaves the onus on the church not to be bigotted because as Folau shows not everyone is smart enough to eventually realise that what they're being told is plainly wrong. That's no excuse for Folau's actions but you'd expect a church to care that their outdated stances are negatively affecting their followers in the workplace.
 
The Alpha Bro said:
You'd be hard pressed to find a Christian religion that hasn't evolved over 2000 years, an easy example to make after ncurd's post is that now the Catholic church sees the roles of Mary Magdalene and particularly the Virgin Mary as more significant than the majority of protestant and orthodox churches do. Some things change while others are set in stone for no discernible reason, there's no reason why churches can't change their views and state the obvious that there is no moral difference to being gay or straight.

There's also the obvious factor that you don't have to agree with everything your church teaches you, if Jesus had Christianity wouldn't exist, if Martin Luther had Folau's church wouldn't exist etc... But the influence a church can have on impressionable kids still leaves the onus on the church not to be bigotted because as Folau shows not everyone is smart enough to eventually realise that what they're being told is plainly wrong. That's no excuse for Folau's actions but you'd expect a church to care that their outdated stances are negatively affecting their followers in the workplace.
Click to expand...

Indeed. I also never said that my church doesn't allow homosexual people into their congregation. I think there might be homosexual people in my church, They just don't openly display it.

I really don't get why there is such an attack on religion nowadays. Churches have to fend off from every corner people who are against their views, when the majority of churches are peaceful places where people go to find solace/hope/help. If a church have an opinion on a certain matter, they have the right to express it as a legal entity, just like a company or a person.

There was a court case recently in SA where a church's went to court to prevent that same-sex marriage may be done in their churches. Where the high court ruled it unlawful and unconstitutional. Now the issue here is that they don't homosexuals to be married by the church's reverends or in their church buildings. Which IMHO is just a stupid court case to be had in any case.

The reverend, if he feels uncomfortable in marrying same sex couples, then he can just politely decline the offer. As for the building, to be quite honest, you don't see many weddings in churches anymore. Everyone rather uses the ample wedding venues which has a chapel on site, next to the reception area and bar, and where all the guests can sleepover.
 
The Alpha Bro said:
You'd be hard pressed to find a Christian religion that hasn't evolved over 2000 years, an easy example to make after ncurd's post is that now the Catholic church sees the roles of Mary Magdalene and particularly the Virgin Mary as more significant than the majority of protestant and orthodox churches do. Some things change while others are set in stone for no discernible reason
Click to expand...
Not to mention that Protestant's eyes are closer together and Catholic's are further apart.
 
The Alpha Bro said:
You'd be hard pressed to find a Christian religion that hasn't evolved over 2000 years, an easy example to make after ncurd's post is that now the Catholic church sees the roles of Mary Magdalene and particularly the Virgin Mary as more significant than the majority of protestant and orthodox churches do. Some things change while others are set in stone for no discernible reason, there's no reason why churches can't change their views and state the obvious that there is no moral difference to being gay or straight.

There's also the obvious factor that you don't have to agree with everything your church teaches you, if Jesus had Christianity wouldn't exist, if Martin Luther had Folau's church wouldn't exist etc... But the influence a church can have on impressionable kids still leaves the onus on the church not to be bigotted because as Folau shows not everyone is smart enough to eventually realise that what they're being told is plainly wrong. That's no excuse for Folau's actions but you'd expect a church to care that their outdated stances are negatively affecting their followers in the workplace.
Click to expand...

This point is purely academic, because like Ncurd, the subject fascinates me. So the Catholic Church has changed it's stance on Mary Magdalene. However I assume, though I can't quote any particular source right now, that at some point one of the Pope's commented on her as a prostitute and whore etc...However that is now viewed differently by the current Pope(I hope so).
Now as the Pope is the Vicar of Christ and the Voice of God on Earth, does this mean that God's opinion has changed from the older Pope's to the newer Pope's? The problem is that how do you decide which part are just the opinions of old men from long ago that we now view as incorrect and which parts are actually the Word of God and can't be changed.

Now opinion,
Once you start picking and choosing which parts of organised religion to believe, it quickly falls down. This is why I say religion should be personal to the individual and not organised as organisations invariably abuse that position. Another example is Notre Dame. Yes it is terrible and I admire people for donating to have it rebuilt. However the Catholic Church has spent centuries hoarding valuable objects and wealth. Instead of asking for donations, how about they use some of that wealth they effectively stole from people to finance the rebuilding, especially when you look at Jesus's teachings on wealth. I commend people for donating, but as an atheist I don't feel that an organisation as powerful and wealthy as the Catholic Church should rely on donations to rebuild it's vanity project to God. I could donate for cultural and heritage reasons, but that would be my choice, not because the group that runs it would like donations to help fix the cathedral.

To make it clear, I have no issue with people's personal beliefs as long as they don't impact on other people's lives in a negative way. However, I think organised religions are extremely hypocritical and have caused more problems for society than they have solved. That's my personal belief.
 
Just to add with Notre Dame the other side is also France in general is incredibly wealthy. Its rebuilding should not be a matter of charity despite the fact I full support efforts to restore it as with all historical of significant cultural and historic importance.
 
Reiser99 said:
This point is purely academic, because like Ncurd, the subject fascinates me. So the Catholic Church has changed it's stance on Mary Magdalene. However I assume, though I can't quote any particular source right now, that at some point one of the Pope's commented on her as a prostitute and whore etc...However that is now viewed differently by the current Pope(I hope so).
Now as the Pope is the Vicar of Christ and the Voice of God on Earth, does this mean that God's opinion has changed from the older Pope's to the newer Pope's? The problem is that how do you decide which part are just the opinions of old men from long ago that we now view as incorrect and which parts are actually the Word of God and can't be changed.

Now opinion,
Once you start picking and choosing which parts of organised religion to believe, it quickly falls down. This is why I say religion should be personal to the individual and not organised as organisations invariably abuse that position. Another example is Notre Dame. Yes it is terrible and I admire people for donating to have it rebuilt. However the Catholic Church has spent centuries hoarding valuable objects and wealth. Instead of asking for donations, how about they use some of that wealth they effectively stole from people to finance the rebuilding, especially when you look at Jesus's teachings on wealth. I commend people for donating, but as an atheist I don't feel that an organisation as powerful and wealthy as the Catholic Church should rely on donations to rebuild it's vanity project to God. I could donate for cultural and heritage reasons, but that would be my choice, not because the group that runs it would like donations to help fix the cathedral.

To make it clear, I have no issue with people's personal beliefs as long as they don't impact on other people's lives in a negative way. However, I think organised religions are extremely hypocritical and have caused more problems for society than they have solved. That's my personal belief.
Click to expand...
Re Paragraph 1: You'd really have to ask someone who has a far stronger faith than mine, I'd be very surprised if God turns out to be real and I think you need to believe in order to answer that question. My thought on the matter would be that the pope is closer to a head of state than royalty (as in direct descendant of God, or God's voice on earth type bs) and that religion is a fairly malleable and really only the words of Jesus can be considered the word of God, the rest is down to interpretation.

Paragraph 2: again my lack of faith distorts this but as part of a religion you're not a blind follower, in my experience, change is slow but an individual can influence it. Most religious organisations are pretty open about religion being personal too.

Notre Dame: I don't know, people are donating because they want to, some for their own personal gain too (YSL, L'Oréal etc...) You can't really stop that and it's not as if there's tonnes of encouragement from the French gov. Or Catholic church.
 
Reiser99 said:
This point is purely academic, because like Ncurd, the subject fascinates me. So the Catholic Church has changed it's stance on Mary Magdalene. However I assume, though I can't quote any particular source right now, that at some point one of the Pope's commented on her as a prostitute and whore etc...However that is now viewed differently by the current Pope(I hope so).
Now as the Pope is the Vicar of Christ and the Voice of God on Earth, does this mean that God's opinion has changed from the older Pope's to the newer Pope's? The problem is that how do you decide which part are just the opinions of old men from long ago that we now view as incorrect and which parts are actually the Word of God and can't be changed.

Now opinion,
Once you start picking and choosing which parts of organised religion to believe, it quickly falls down. This is why I say religion should be personal to the individual and not organised as organisations invariably abuse that position. Another example is Notre Dame. Yes it is terrible and I admire people for donating to have it rebuilt. However the Catholic Church has spent centuries hoarding valuable objects and wealth. Instead of asking for donations, how about they use some of that wealth they effectively stole from people to finance the rebuilding, especially when you look at Jesus's teachings on wealth. I commend people for donating, but as an atheist I don't feel that an organisation as powerful and wealthy as the Catholic Church should rely on donations to rebuild it's vanity project to God. I could donate for cultural and heritage reasons, but that would be my choice, not because the group that runs it would like donations to help fix the cathedral.

To make it clear, I have no issue with people's personal beliefs as long as they don't impact on other people's lives in a negative way. However, I think organised religions are extremely hypocritical and have caused more problems for society than they have solved. That's my personal belief.
Click to expand...

When a lot of individuals have the same ideals or beliefs such as fans of a rugby team, political ideals, religious beliefs etc. they choose to become a group and that group in a combined effort become organized and that's how organizations, churches, fan clubs etc. start. Nobody is forcing anyone to be part of a church or religious community, neither am I forced to be a Bulls supporter or Arsenal fan, it's my choice. Now since I'm young and naive and don't know everything, I rely on my elders to give my guidance, whether its spiritual, mentally or any other way. My elders in my church I have the utmost respect for them, and the way they have had an impact on my life is something that will be with me forever, they molded me into the person I am today.

Christianity isn't just the Protestants and the Catholics, there are plenty of other factions if I could use that word. Our church doesn't follow the Catholic ways, nor are in any shape or form responsible for anything the Vatican or the Pope says, even though we might align our beliefs to the same ideals as them, as we follow the same scripture.

Asking for donations is one way to help out, but again there is no obligation on anyone to give. Our church asks for donations, in an effort to help other congregants who are financially struggling or the elderly who are bed-ridden or sick. Again, I'm in under no obligation to give, as I too have to feed and support my own family, but if I have the means, then surely I will give to help out. Some day, I will need their help too. quid pro quo.
 
I'm going to leave this as I think we agree religions aren't perfect and we're getting off topic. My personal belief is that organised religion is bad and causes many of the problems in the world. However I only share that belief if others start the conversation and people are free to disagree with me. I don't go around telling people that for both reason or that I think they will receive some kind of punishment for being part of a religion.
 
Reiser99 said:
I'm going to leave this as I think we agree religions aren't perfect and we're getting off topic. My personal belief is that organised religion is bad and causes many of the problems in the world. However I only share that belief if others start the conversation and people are free to disagree with me. I don't go around telling people that for both reason or that I think they will receive some kind of punishment for being part of a religion.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I agree that we are digressing. I just wanted to share my point of view as a religious person myself. I'm not forcing my religion on anyone, nor am I condemning anyone for their race/sexuality/religion etc.

I have an issue when every christian are being swept with the same brush, when there are vast differences.

Anyway, everybody should enjoy their easter long weekend, even if you don't believe, enjoy the free day off from work... You're welcome!
 
Every Time Ref said:
Oh man, because STEVE rhymes with EVE! But ADAM AND STEVE is like totally gay!!!!

Man that's clever, where do they come up with their ideas??
Click to expand...
Like their pastor or the pope or the bible tells them.

Some old human like being that luves in the sky and has always existed created Adam and Steve in his own image ( because of course a human couldn't exist without somehow being created, unlike a human like being, and I mean come on its only human s can create cool stuff, I mean have you seen cars and building a and so forth, so it must have been a human like being that created humand).

Hahaha "steve", that's hilarious
 
[QUOTE="Umaga's Witness, post: 941553, member: 65365]ahaha "steve", that's hilarious[/QUOTE]

Even autocorrect disagrees with folau
 

Latest posts

Top